Did everyone see this link Davis posted?!? I read this when it was passed around to a few boards in December (the post made by DFLY). I think DFLY was spot-on with this. Hastily written as DFLY mentioned, but a good read for all here.
But first, I mentioned in an earlier post that I see some good in this. The reason is that first, I have only higher confidence after seeing all of these tricks played and the price has been holding very well. Yes, there have been large swings in this channel but, as you will see here, most of this is just "presentation" by the manipulators. Second, it seems very possible that some of this has been enjoyed by shareholders who are simply doing whatever they can to accumulate as many shares as possible. Sentiment is very high and Jan has attracted strong-holding longs. I believe we'll be seeing many more joining us when the price begins the breakout run.
Note where DFLY writes the following, and then look at the screen shots below of the PGEI trades for 6/29 & 6/30:
It takes a little bit of time and effort, but if you really want to understand what's going on with the recent PGEI manipulation, I think it's all right here in the images below.
Note the highlighted trades in the images below, and note also my observation of the action on Thursday (6/30) at EOD when someone slapped the ask for 900,000 shares (the last three trades showing, at 15:48) - apparently a limit order at 0.0054 or higher that cleared the 0.0051 offer and a large part of an offer at 0.0054. Immediately after this an offer appeared on the ask at 0.0052. Who does this in the middle of buying action? And who reacts so quickly to such a buy order to drop the ask within seconds?!? Answer: manipulative MMs/algorithms and/or possibly traders piggybacking (or emulating) the MM algorithms.
Do these purported MM algorithms actually exist, running on the servers of CDEL, NITE and possibly other MMs? Yes, this is possible. Wouldn't this be illegal activity? Maybe, maybe not. Unfortunately, it seems that MMs are given quite a bit latitude to "make the market." Is it possible that Ken Griffin, founder and CEO of Citadel (CDEL) (who topped Forbes magazine's list of the highest-earning hedge fund managers, making $1.7B in 2015 alone) would risk his fortune, civil liberties and personal freedom in this way? Yes, this is possible. Anyone here ever heard of Bernie Madoff? Allen Stanford? Jeffrey Skilling (think 'Enron')? Ivan Boesky? Jordan Belfort (does 'The Wolf of Wall Street' sound familiar)?
Or is it possible that one or more traders or groups of traders are "emulating" such algorithms? The answer is yes, it's possible, I have no doubt. Not only is it possible, but I believe it is very likely.
- Exclusive: U.S. investigates market-making operations of Citadel, KCG - only indirectly related to the manipulation, but good that they're being investigated, I expect that it could bring enough attention that CDEL may adjust and tone down the manipulations soon. And this quote below from the article looks pretty interesting: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-probe-exclusive-idUSKCN0Y11CJ
The highlights in the 6/30 trades record is particularly interesting because I have the full day's trades and can draw a connection between the uncharacteristic dumps (dumping while action is trending with "buys"), the 'coded' binary multiple buy orders (10200, 10200, 20400, 408000 & 81600) and the 6-digit "dump" print (1,000,000 @ 0.004842). It goes like this:
1) dump 450000 at 0.0049 (12:13) ... 2) dump 710,000 shares at 0.0045 (12:29) ... 3) binary walkup of buy orders from 10,200 to 81,600 shares at 0.0049 (12:54, total of 163,200 shares) ... 4) "cleanup" dump of 1,000,000 shares at 0.004842 (15:21)
Here's the formula:
'working trades' = 'cleanup trades'
-450000 - 710000 + 163200 = 996800
This balances perfectly! ...with only 1000000 - 996800 = 3200 shares of 'discrepancy'. 3200 shares is well within the margin of transaction costs, fees and/or even simple MM 'housekeeping' adjustments.
There are a number of explanations for why, what and who, but here is one plausible scenario that could involve a MM, a trader, a trader group or any combination:
1) dump shares to self or partner bid (MM or trader) ... wait to see if the desired retail action follows ... ... no one selling, try again 2) dump more shares to self or partner bid approaching double the size of the first dump ... wait to see if THIS causes the desired retail action ... ... oops, no takers, better try to cleanup before intraday momentum shifts out of favor (e.g. good news drops or a wise 'whale' investor or group recognizes the action and makes one or more large buys to effectively 'squeeze' these short-like dump trades) 3) make small buy orders at an acceptable price and in small increments so as not to lose money agaist the price of the previous dumps by pushing the price up too quickly 4) make the cleanup dump that balances accounts (self or between partners) or effectively covers the short-like postion (this could very easily be a true naked short position if it is a MM)
If nothing else, any investigations into MM and/or broker activities could lead to access to data which could bring to light any clear and obvious abuses of 'latitude given to MMs for making the market'. If I can put these pieces together for a single limited example using a calculator and everyday public information, just think what 'big data' can do - and then think what big data can do with access to information to which I am not privvy.
FYI, I didn't get complete trade records for certain days, but I downloaded some records of by-the-minute trade volume and connected some dots. You can see in the following image the same pattern over several days last week. And LOOK at the volume percentage of these fake dumps (from one account to another, either MM or trader)!